News Update

Vizag DRI sleuths seize 1161 kg Ganja concealed under gravel material being transported by lorryBefore GST roll-out Union of India to scrap 16 Cesses of Excise and Service Tax; to cost Rs 65,000 Crore to ExchequerPMs constituency Varanasi to host third G-20 Framework Working Group meeting on WednesdayIndian Navy to de-induct Long-Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft after 29 yearsCBI Court convicts former Oriental Bank Manager & othersST - Claim for exclusion of amounts on basis of acting as pure agent can be made only if all conditions for such concept are fulfilled: CESTATCBEC to be renamed as CBIC; to have 101 GST Commissionerates, including 50 Appeals CommissioneratesApplications invited for First Secretary (Legal) at PMI at WTO, GenevaPangs of GST - Govt sets up Working Groups to address peculiar problems of industryCX - Annual Production Capacity - Actual Production vs deemed production - Legal Fiction vs Presumption - Supreme Court refers matter to Larger BenchCBDT directs officers to grant interest waiver in certain casesOROP - Pension to be reviewed every 5 yearsIncome Tax searches lead to seizure of Rs 3625 CroreUnclaimed Deposits in Banks & Insurance Companies exceed Rs 8000 CroreCST compensation to States: Centre to release Rs 5834 Crore before Mar 31CCI imposes Rs 51K penalty on Kerala MP heading film association as PresidentCX - Any relief under doctrine of promissory estoppel can be enforced only in hands of Courts - Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself such powers: CESTAT4.5% Indians suffer from depression: MinisterDelhi Insurance Ombudsman Office gets ISO certificationCommissionerates fail to pay court fee stamp - CBEC releases ListGST Bills copies being printed; to be tabled on MondayTrump's attempt to substitute Obamacare failsGovt approves nine FDI proposals involving proposal worth Rs 659 CroreCustoms Duty on Sunflower seeds (1206 0090) for the purpose of extraction and refining of oil reduced to 10% for the period 1st April 2017 to 30th September 2017GST high on Alcohol Manufacturing IndustrySFO in UK doing well to deal with foreign bribery casesIndian Cement Industry accounts for only 7% of global needsI-T - Excess stock found during survey which did not belong to assessee but to its Karta in his individual capacity, cannot be added to assessee's closing stockCX - It is 'nature of order' of Tribunal and not 'scope of appeal' that determines maintainability: HCCus - DRI officials at wedding premises - Calling payments as voluntary is turning a blind eye to harsh realities: HCST - Since CESTAT has remanded matter, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law would arise for consideration: HC
 
I-T - Disclosure made after initiation of proceedings u/s 142, is not 'voluntary disclosure' and hence would not absolve assessee from rigours of penalty

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 20, 2017: THE ISSUE IS - Whether the disclosure made by assessee only after the AO initiated proceedings u/s 142, is not a 'voluntary disclosure' and hence would not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty. YES is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The assessee, engaged in shipping business, is assessed to tax under Chapter XIIG of the Act to the extent its income was earned from vessels, satisfying/ qualifying the requirements thereof. So far as the income from other vessels i.e. non-qualifying vessels was concerned, the same was subjected to tax under the head “Profit & Gain from its Business or Profession”. Thus, classifying its income as tonnage business and non-tonnage business. During the subject Assessment Year, the assessee had suffered foreign exchange loss in respect of its tonnage business. However, the above foreign exchange loss of Rs.9.37 lakhs was debited to compute its non-tonnage income while bringing it to tax under Profit & Gain from business or profession. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) & 143(2), calling various information regarding details of expenses debited in its Profit & Loss Account and expenses incurred on account of foreign exchange. Thereafter, the assessee responded to the same and the AO determined the assessee's income at Rs.2.58 Crores u/s 143(3). This was after adding the foreign exchange loss of Rs.9.37 lakhs which had been incorrectly debited while computing its non-tonnage income. The order of the AO recorded that this was done after it was found on verification that no foreign exchange loss was incurred in respect of non-tonnage income. Besides, initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Thereafter, an order was passed imposing a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3.09 lakhs, wherein it specifically recorded the fact that though there were no transaction in foreign currency resulting in foreign exchange loss, in case of non-tonnage income, yet the assessee had debited exchange loss to its non-tonnage business only to reduce its non-tonnage income being offered to tax.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ it is clear that notice u/s 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to the assessee seeking details of expenses debited to Profit and Loss Account, along with details of foreign exchange expenses. Even according to the assessee, the alleged mistake on its part was pointed out by a letter during assessment proceedings, where it stated that it had committed a mistake in debiting foreign exchange loss to its determine non-tonnage income, when in fact, no foreign exchange loss was involved in respect of its non-tonnage business. Thus, it is clear that so-called mistake as claimed by the assesssee, was only after notices were issued u/s 142 & 143. It was only an attempt to pre-empt the Revenue finding out the the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was voluntary disclosure. In fact, the Apex Court in MAK Data (P) Ltd., has observed that: "the findings of AO shall not be carried away by the plea of Assessee like 'voluntary disclosure', 'buy peace', 'avoid litigation', 'amicable settlement' etc. to explain its conduct." The Apex Court has also further observed that "It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty." In the peculiar fact of the present case, the socalled voluntary disclosure was only after the AO initiated proceedings u/s 142. Thus, it was not a voluntary disclosure. In fact, the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) also records the fact of verification by the AO, leading to a finding that the assessee had debited foreign exchange loss to arrive its non-tonnage income. It is only in penalty proceedings that this issue is raised for the first time. Further, the assessee besides stating it is a mistake, has not offered any explanation. Therefore, the explanation u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not found to be satisfactory by the authorities under the Act and penalty imposed and sustained.

(See 2017-TIOL-519-HC-MUM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS